Hoping to quell the critics, President Gould issued a letter outlining her commitment to free speech and academic freedom.  She observed that “[s]tudents and faculty . . . have the right to invite speakers, engage in discussion, and present ideas to further educational discussion and debate.”  She noted that the “mere invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of any particular point of view, and there is no obligation, as some have suggested, to present multiple perspectives at any one event.”  Indeed, this is, in her mind, the very purpose of a university:  “Providing an open forum to discuss important topics, even those many find highly objectionable, is a centuries-old practice on university campuses around the country.  Indeed, this spirit of inquiry and critical debate is a hallmark of the American education system.”  Thus, she emphasized that “it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal.”

Not only is this her position, but the political science department also “fully agrees and has reaffirmed its longstanding policy to give equal consideration to co-sponsoring speakers who represent any and all points of view.”  Those faculty also assured students that they “welcome—indeed encourage—requests to co-sponsor speakers and events from all student groups, departments, and programs.”

While many, such as Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, may be skeptical, students should embrace the tremendous opportunity the President just gave them.  They now have an open invitation—from the President herself—to put the College to the test.  Does it really treasure academic freedom?  Does it really celebrate vigorous debate of “any and all points of view”—even controversial or “highly objectionable” ones?  Is it really an “environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal”?  Or is all of this just empty rhetoric administrators trots out when citizens object to leftist or politically correct ideas?

Well, as they say, actions speak louder than words.  Students can find out what the College really believes by organizing a whole series of events—complete with speakers and panel discussions—in keeping with the “BDS” theme:

Students United for Israel could call for a boycott of the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups that seek to destroy Israel; for the divestment of entities that financially support those racist—and often terrorist—groups; and for sanctions against those entities.

The Newman Catholic Club could call for a boycott of states that endorse same-sex “marriage” (including New York), for the divestment of groups that support same-sex “marriage,” and for sanctions against Catholics who stray from the Church’s teachings on this subject.

Chinese Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of China due to its forced abortion policies and religious persecution, for the divestment of companies doing business in China, and for sanctions against China.

Brooklyn College Intercollegiate Studies Institute Group could call for states to boycott the Obamacare exchanges, for the divestment of groups that supported Obamacare (e.g., AARP), and for sanctions against Obama administration officials for implementing Obamacare.

The Coptic Christian Club could call for a boycott of the Muslim Brotherhood due to its persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, for the divestment of companies that do business in Egypt, and for sanctions against that country.

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship could call for a boycott of Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, for the divestment of all businesses that support Planned Parenthood (e.g., Susan G. Komen for the Cure), and for sanctions against Planned Parenthood because of its taxpayer fraud.

Once these groups have organized their own BDS events and invited the speakers, they should ask the political science department—or even the President’s Office—to serve as co-sponsors.  Perhaps it could even be the College’s theme for the semester.

The responses to such invitations would be telling.  If the President and the political science faculty were to decline for one lame excuse or another or if they were to insist on a more “balanced” presentation, students could simply say, in the monotone the National Weather Service patented:  “This is a test.  This is a test of academic freedom at Brooklyn College.”  Then they could call a group that really believes in academic freedom—the Alliance Defending Freedom.

After recounting Pastor Giglio’s wide-ranging ministry, Ruth Malhotra and Jennifer Keeton describe just how “tolerantly” leftists treats those who disagree with them:

The extreme opposition to Giglio was yet another example of a tragic lesson we learned firsthand as students at public universities.  And that lesson is this:  unless you embrace, applaud, and advocate for the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex marriage, your views, your voice, and even your work on behalf of the poor and suffering are not welcome in the public square.

Despite all the sacrificial efforts one may have invested into humanitarian causes for the greater good, there is this rabid insistence that in order to do anything in the civic arena—including offer a prayer at a monumental event for our nation—you must not have, at any time in your history, spoken in a way that is disagreeable to a certain group of activists.

As they explain, this extreme intolerance of those who hold Biblical views extends from high-profile events like an inaugural benediction to university campuses, where it is pervasive.  And it involves a range of tactics:  “Sometimes—as in the case of Giglio—the tactic of the far-left involves attempts to shame and shun those they disagree with, and other times they actually use the force of law to silence those who do not share their worldview.”

For Ruth and Jennifer, this effort to purge the public square of any viewpoints the left deems “offensive” or “intolerant” is far from theoretical.  Instead, they speak from personal experience, as they have both stood courageously to defend their convictions and freedoms at Georgia Tech and Augusta State University:

We were repeatedly censored, threatened, and condemned for our refusal to conform to a narrow agenda regarding human sexual behavior.  We were told by administrators and professors that we must change our Biblical beliefs, follow impossibly vague speech codes, and undergo comprehensive programs of thought reform.  Our cases, filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, defended the freedom of Christian and conservative students to speak on matters of public importance and to pursue our fields of study without compromising our convictions.  In response to our lawsuits, the Tolerance Inquisition unleashed its fury.  We faced everything from snide insults to false attacks on our character to threats of rape and murder so serious that Ruth was put under police protection.

Sadly, Pastor Giglio’s experience illustrates how the mindset so typical on university campuses is beginning to leech into the rest of society.  The only way for this to change is for Christians—whether on campus or off—to ignore the social stigma and stand up for their beliefs.  When they do, we stand ready to assist them and to insist that their freedom to exercise and proclaim those beliefs be respected.

Update:  Ruth’s and Jennifer’s column is also available at The Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Christian Post.

The university correctly reinstated McCaskill, but we are troubled that the university let this drag on so long.  Several years ago, San Francisco State University conducted a seven-month investigation of several college students for sponsoring a speech event on campus.  The university eventually dropped the investigation, but it had already chilled the students’ free speech.  A federal court later enjoined the policy that allowed the university to investigate dubious charges.  No doubt, Gallaudet has accomplished the same result by suspending McCaskill for three months after she engaged in a constitutionally protected activity.  If Gallaudet had been a public university, McCaskill would have a strong First Amendment retaliation claim.  But even though it’s not, Gallaudet was close to breaking several federal and state laws.  We hope McCaskill won’t be dissuaded from expressing her personal beliefs in the future, and we caution that public universities should not follow Gallaudet’s speech-chilling example.

Sharon “Laine” Tadlock served as director of the University’s education program at its campus in Springfield, Illinois.  In the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court’s invention of a state constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” Tadlock and her female partner got “married” in Iowa.  Upon Tadlock’s return, she published a wedding announcement in the local newspaper.  In it, she identified herself as a Benedictine University employee.  By doing so, she publicly flouted the University’s religious teaching on marriage.  In response, the University transferred her to a different job position, with the same salary and benefits.  She failed to appear for work on the appointed day, thereby resigning her employment.

Tadlock complained to the Illinois Department of Human Rights that the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation.  The Department rejected her claim, reasoning that anything the University did to her (and it denies any adverse treatment) was motivated not by her sexual orientation, her sexual behavior, or her “marriage,” but instead by her public flouting — in a newspaper announcement in which she identified herself as a University employee – of the school’s religious teaching.

The Alliance Defense Fund assisted in the University’s defense.

North Carolina voters will join Minnesota voters in 2012 in deciding whether to add marriage definition amendments to their respective state constitutions. The Minnesota Legislature earlier this year approved a similar proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage only as one man and one woman. Voters in the North Star State will decide whether to add it to the state constitution in November 2012. The Indiana Legislature also approved a marriage amendment, but it must pass the Legislature again after the 2012 election before it goes to the people for a popular vote.

Currently, 29 states have state constitutional amendments defining marriage.  Additionally, Hawaii has a provision giving exclusive jurisdiction to define marriage to the state legislature. Six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex “marriage.” Three of the states (Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut) had same sex marriage imposed by court decrees. In three states (Vermont, New Hampshire and New York) and the District of Columbia, elected officials voted to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

_____________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

However, Democrats, including those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, now oppose DOMA, even though many of them voted for it in 1996 because they now support redefining marriage to include same sex couples.  Although the Democrats have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, it is uncertain whether this repeal could overcome a filibuster in the Senate, and it would not be approved by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.  On Monday, President Obama said that he supported repeal of DOMA.

DOMA has two major parts.  One part allows states to decline to recognize a marriage consisting of a same sex couple that was legally entered into in another state.  The other major part of DOMA defines marriage only as one man and one woman for purposes of federal law.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I was able to assist Austin and watch the DOMA hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee.  I offer several observations:

  1. The hearing hid the fact that the DOMA repeal could force all states to recognize same-sex marriages.

The Democrats who orchestrated this hearing cleverly directed its focus away from one of the major aspects of the DOMA repeal legislation that many would oppose – DOMA repeal would wipe out the provision that says states are free to decline to recognize same-sex marriages legally obtained in another state.  We would see same-sex couples who have obtained a marriage license in one of the few states where it is legal, come to one of the many states with a state DOMA, and argue in court that the second state must recognize their same-sex marriage license, even though same sex marriage is not legally recognized in the second state.

This gets into a complicated area of constitutional law concerning “full faith and credit.”  Generally, full faith and credit means this: If a court in State A enters a judgment, for example, that Mary owes Sam $2000, then Sam can go to State B to get a court order to take some of Mary’s assets there to pay the judgment.  State B cannot refuse to honor the court decision from State A under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. But how does that apply to marriage,  because a marriage license is not a court order?  Generally, states do not have to recognize licenses obtained in another state.  So, if someone in State A obtains a driver’s license, or a license to practice law, or a realtor’s license or a marriage license, State B has the discretion whether to recognize that license or not.

Whether the second state will recognize the license depends on what kind of license we are talking about. Most states generally recognize marriage licenses entered into in other states, so a man and a woman do not have to get married again when they move to another state.  In contrast, states generally require people to get new driver’s licenses and licenses to practice law if they move to another state. Federal DOMA made it very clear that a state recognizing only marriages of one man and one woman would not have to recognize a marriage license from another state obtained by a same-sex couple.  As a constitutional attorney, I am not exactly sure what the repeal of DOMA would mean for this area of law.  States might very well retain the power to decline to recognize marriage licenses from another state, because of the states’ general authority under our Constitution’s system of federalism.

The Senate hearing on Wednesday focused on couples who lived in the five states that have legalized same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and on Sunday, New York, as well as the District of Columbia).  They had legal marriages under state law, but were not recognized under federal law.  However, the hearing barely mentioned that these couples could move, for example, to one of the 30 states with a state constitutional provision defining marriage only as one man and one woman, and challenging that provision.  In effect, this may be an effort to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage.  The hearing would have had a different tone if the Judiciary Committee had focused on this important effect of the proposed DOMA repeal.

    2. Many others besides same-sex couples have problems obtaining federal benefits, and Congress can fix the problems without redefining marriage.  The hearing consisted of a number of people who had obtained a marriage license in one of the states that has legalized same-sex marriage, and how they have had trouble obtaining federal benefits.  For example, one of the same-sex partners dies, and the surviving partner cannot obtain Social Security benefits that a married couple consisting of a man and a woman could obtain.

But the hearing did not explain that others have the same problem.  For example, a single person who is older and on Social Security benefits cannot pass his benefits to anyone  else when he dies, but a surviving married person could obtain the benefits of his or her deceased spouse.  Repealing federal DOMA would not help this single person pass his benefits to his niece or nephew.  His money would simply go back to the U.S. Treasury.  If a man is a federal worker and he cares for his sick grandmother, repeal of federal DOMA will not help him add her to his federal health insurance and he will not receive any Social Security money when she dies, because they are blood relatives who cannot marry. A woman who takes care of her adult brother with Down’s Syndrome must pay federal tax on the insurance coverage her employer extends to her brother.

Repeal of federal DOMA will do nothing to ease these unnecessary tax burden the brother and sister described above cannot legally marry anywhere.  The benefits issues should be addressed separately and Congres should enact solutions that help everyone with the problem, not just same sex couples.

Also, several legal challenges to federal DOMA are in courts around the nation.  The most advanced cases are in Massachusetts, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.

Links:
1. Austin Nimocks written testimony
2. The entire DOMA hearing on c-span.
3. Youtube video of Austin Nimocks testimony and Q&A

______________________
Join the conversation Facebook.com/SpeakUpU
Sound off below – Leave a comment!

Historically, both polygamy and incest have been more widely practiced, and accepted, than the Supreme Court, and most Americans, seem to believe.  Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?

    So, as I and others have argued, the real issue is “marriage deconstruction” not “marriage equality” in the debate over whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry.   In other words, the fight is between those who believe that societies should encourage people to have sex and make babies only within a public institution called marriage, defined uniformly for all as one man and one woman.  The opposite view is not “allow same sex couples to marry,” but to abandon any common, culture-wide definition of marriage and allow each person to do what he or she thinks is right in regards to marriage, sex and family.  However, the harmful results societies suffer from this “self autonomy” view of marriage have caused world cultures to reject it. The common experience of human societies since the dawn of history is that the “self autonomy” model of sex, marriage and family causes men to act irresponsibly (because it is all about one’s self-fulfillment),by exploiting women and neglecting the children the men produce.

A society cannot sustain itself over time when it allows each person to define marriage and responsible sexual activity any way he wants.

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpU

The student from Biola may have experienced harshness from his fellow students or from faculty members, but maybe not.  That is not clear because what the student seems to want is to attend Biola and never have anyone say to him God’s standards on marriage. Is he really seeking more compassionate treatment for Christians struggling with desires to engage in same-sex behavior, or is he actually seeking to have Biola and other Christian colleges abandon their Biblical beliefs on marriage and instead say that there is nothing Biblically wrong with same-sex behavior?  Christian communities, such as a Christian college, should be places where people can hear God’s standards, and, when they fall short,  humbly admit to their sinful behavior, and find help to overcome it.  Changing the standards is not “compassion.”

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpU

Something is rotten in the states of America… And it isn’t the state of marriage.

Despite a relentless pop-culture, a Big Media and education establishment-led propaganda campaign, and flawed polls screaming that marriage as we know it is doomed in the U.S., support for this foundation of our society is actually alive and well.

For those who believe the support for marriage as a union between one man and one woman has gone asunder in America, we direct you to a scientific survey sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by Public Opinion Strategies last month.

When all the numbers were tallied up from what is believed to be the most extensive national research survey of its kind to date, it was confirmed that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”  A majority (53 percent) of Americans strongly agreed with this sentiment, and a slim 35 percent disagreed.  This comprehensive study of 1,500 Americans’ attitudes toward marriage included research from 14 focus groups from coast to coast.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the misguided claims and misrepresentative polls posturing that marriage in America is passé, please note that this survey is a strikingly accurate reflection of official polling results from the ballot box on this issue – putting the troubled leftist pipe dream in peril.  We’re talking about election statistics spanning from 1998 to 2008, when voters from 31 states were asked to support or reject a state marriage amendment.

California, back in the ancient days of 2008, when an ultra-right-wing presidential candidate received 137 percent of the state’s vote, a marriage amendment passed, sure.  Oh wait, that’s not what happened.  Despite being outspent by $3.5 million and lacking the support of every media, entertainment, cultural, union, educational, and political power structure, marriage proponents were able to pass Proposition 8 by four percent, with 52 percent of the vote.

Note also that Smurf-Blue Maine voted in 2009 to reverse a legislatively imposed redefinition of marriage and restored marriage in the state as it’s always been understood – the union of husband and wife – nothing more, nothing less.

In the 31 states that voted on a marriage protection amendment to determine whether the definition of marriage should stay as a union between a man and a woman within their borders, 63 percent of more than 63 million voters tipped the scales at “yes.”  Only 37 percent said “no.”  That’s nearly 40 million voters affirming marriage to some 23 million rejecting it – a decisive victory for the American family.

But what about the remaining states without such an amendment protecting marriage? (The federal government, along with 45 states, has preserved the definition of marriage either through constitutional amendment or statute.)  If would-be marriage re-definers are so confident, why do they oppose “taking it to the polls” and putting this very public policy decision in the hands of the public?  Some judges have already beat voters out of their right to decide the issue.

In Iowa, the voters reacted to the state supreme court’s imposition on same-sex “marriage” on the state by – in unprecedented fashion – throwing three of the justices off the court.  Iowans would likely have ejected all seven had they been given the opportunity.  Of the five states that issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex cohabitants, none have had marriage redefinition approved by the people, with three states having it forced on them by the courts.

So, in a day and age when it appears as if marriage is about to be swept under by a relentless wave of an anti-marriage culture, all we need to do is grab our [election] boards and say “surf’s up!”  Remember, we’re riding above the wave – not below it.

Here is one salient point from his post, urging us to use accurate terminology in defining marriage:

I don’t think we should use the term “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage.” I think in our everyday discourse, we should say “so-called gay marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage.” I would encourage politicians, pastors, and people to adopt this simple habit.  The reason is that in God’s eyes, there simply is no such thing as so-called “gay marriage.” It does not exist. It cannot be made to exist by desires or decisions or language or laws. God ordained marriage with the words: “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant as husband and wife.

Piper then goes on to discuss how the Biblical theology of marriage should apply to human law and human societies, to protect and benefit everyone.  Ultimately, there is really only one alternative to God’s design for marriage –that of societies abandoning a common and uniform definition of marriage and family, and instead allowing every person to do whatever they want to find self-fulfillment in the areas of sex, family and children.  That may sound enlightened and liberating, but in actual practice, it is not.  The consensus of human experience throughout the centuries shows that many people suffer tragically by the hands of individuals seeking their own personal sexual fulfillment absent significant societal restraint. In order to minimize human suffering and maximize human fulfillment, the Bible instructs all of us to have sex only within a marriage of one man and one woman in which both spouses commit to be sexually faithful to each other for life. There is no “separation of church and state” violation here, because a society that adopts the Biblical definition of marriage protects and benefits all people, just like the Bible’s prohibitions on stealing and lying protect and benefit everyone (not just Christians) in a society that adopts them.  A good public policy idea is still a good idea, and is not “tainted” and constitutionally ”off limits” because it comes from the Bible.

John Piper’s entire post is worth reading.   One additional note:  John Piper’s church, Bethlehem Baptist, is also spearheading efforts to help those devastated earlier this week by the destructive tornadoes that ripped through the northern part of Minneapolis, one of the poorer areas of the city.  John Piper and the Christians he leads strive to implement all that the Bible teaches to help and love others, whether it is urging them to adopt the right definition of marriage or helping his neighbors who are suffering.